Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

slashqwerty writes "Unsatisfied with the proprietary copyright filter Google recently unveiled, Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman has called for an industry standard to filter copyrighted material. Mr. Dauman has the backing of Microsoft, Disney, and Universal. 'They reflect the fact that there ought to be a filtering system in place on the part of technology companies,' he noted. 'Most responsible companies have followed that path. What no one wants is a proprietary system that benefits one company. It is a big drain to a company like ours to have to deal with incompatible systems.' How would an industry standard impact freedom of speech and in particular censorship on the internet? How would it affect small, independent web sites?"

Has anybody been to youtube lately?
Almost every link to a video worth watching(with the rare educational exception) leads to "This video has been removed due to...."
Control is controlled by the need to control. The content providers will shoot themselves in the feet so many
times that they won't have a leg to stand on.

You will probably find most pirated copies of Windows users also have valid OEM licenses, they just choose to use the retail or MSDN or VLK edition. This will have little impact on the Windows market. It is when Windows is not TAXED on OEM hardware you will see an impact.

No. Not by a long shot.

You will find that MANY pirated copies of windows (at least in the western hemisphere) are 'justified' in terms of I pirated XP because my last computer had OEM XP, it died, and the system restore disk wouldn't work on my new PC. Technically that is an infringing copy, as OEM versions are non-transferable to new units.

You will also find boatloads of people with XP Pro that 'upgraded' from their XP Home, and wouldn't pay the ridiculous retail upgrade price from one to the other. You'll also find people with an infringing copy of XP Home or Pro installed because the PC originally came with 98, 2000 or god forbid, ME.

I'd say its true that most of boxes out there are backed by a legit windows license, but most are not the version/edition that they are licensed for.

Yeah, there's people that have OEM Pro and installed VLK or MSDN edition to avoid activation hassles. (I myself was on an infringing VLK edition for a while, because my 'legit' was an original retail upgrade, while the VLK was a full version SP2... so it was FAR less hassle (no disk flipping, no activation, and hours of patches avoided.) When genuine advantage came out and got in my face and I got tired of hacking around it I reverted to the legit copy. Wasted half a day. (I couldn't just change the key because it rejected my legit original upgrade key.)

But in my experience that's a distinct minority, most people with XP Pro VLK/MSDN didn't actually have a legit version of XP Pro. They had a legit version of Windows XP Home, or an older version of windows... but not XP Pro.

Well, it depends. If they have a version of windows that is no longer supported (basically, anything short of XP), they have the option of buying an upgrade to XP (does that still exist) or Vista, or get a free copy of an alternative OS that does the vast majority of what the average home user does (browse the internet).

Also, remember that the upgrade copy will ask for the CD of the original OEM copy. God forbid you lose THAT.

This just isn't true, and the result of Microsoft v. Zamos demonstrates that even Microsoft knows this isn't true.

Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah 1997) ruled that the purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale, "... and is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the purchase of any other good. Said software transactions do not merely constitute the sale of a license to use the software.

On the contrary, content providers existed before the internet & were doing well before the rise of the internet.
Content providers do not need the likes of YouTube etc to survive, however the adverse is not true, YouTube does not exist without content providers.

No, but the vast majority of videos I watch on youtube are uploaded by the person making the video. As I understand it, this is youtube's raison d'être. That many of the uploads are 'rips' of commercial material does not detract from youtube being a 'storefront' where Joe Public can publish videos for the world to see.

> Control is controlled by the need to control. The content providers will shoot themselves in the feet so many times that they won't have a leg to> stand on.Control is controlled by the copyright owners. They own the copyright, so they have the moral and often the legal right to control access to the material. If Google wants to pay billions for a method of distributing copyrighted material then it has to enter into a contract with the copyright owners, otherwise it might prove to be something of a

Ultimately? Social compacts backed up by force. Nobody will notice if they disregard your "ownership" of the world. But they will get their asses sued if they ignore copyright. If you want your ownership of the world to be taken seriously, start investing in a big army.

No, the correct answer is that neither of us have the moral right, and the only thing that would allow us to get away with the attempt is having enough people on our side.

Which gets to the really relevant question. What is in it for the rest of us if we enforce the arbitrary copying rules that you like so much, and are we REALLY on your side at all, or have we just not quite woken up enough to realize that we have a choice about it.

The point of copyright laws is to protect the creators of them such that they have an interest in producing more of them, on the grounds that it's in the public's interest for there to be a range of songs, books etc to consume.

That's half of it, actually. The other objective of copyright law is to have as little or no copyright law as possible, on the grounds that it is in the public interest for works to be free to use and disseminate in any manner, without permission, and without cost.

Copyright is a legal right certainly. Let's not pretend it's a moral right. Copyright as it was put together was intended to prevent commercial exploitation of another's work (http://www.advogato.org/article/323.html). It was not really intended to prevent you and I from swapping CD's. That's a recent idea pushed by the record companies not to protect a moral interest, rather it was intended to maximize revenue.As to the idea that professionals make stuff that is good, my counterexamples are "American I

Fundamentally, it comes down to whether it is moral to prevent the free flow of information and creative works, including derivative works of other artists, for one's own financial benefit, or whether it is moral to try to spread those works, to preserve them by distributed effort (n.b. the libraries of antiquity did not survive; only the widespread dissemination of works got us what little we have), and to encourage and assist in the free use, enjoyment, and creation of others.

I can tolerate copyright on utilitarian grounds, but it is basically amoral, and if not that, then immoral.

I am of the belief that if the copyrighted content in question is no longer legitimately available, then it should be public domain. For example, NES games should remain under copyright because they are now legitimately available (Virtual Console). Youtube- a music video of a song entitled "Rough Diamond" by the band Lindberg should not be under copyright because there's no one selling it anymore.

I really don't get it. So, they want to filter out content so that no one sees any copyrighted material anywhere on the net. What next? Sue movie theaters for displaying trailers of films you didn't pay to see in the first place?Heck, if you don't even get a preview/prelisten of the movies/songs you are interested in in the first place, how do you know whether you'll want to buy them later? And they still wonder why their revenue is on the decline?

What next? Sue movie theaters for displaying trailers of films you didn't pay to see in the first place?

Wha? I don't get this "next step" of yours. If a theater was showing trailers without permission you can bet your ass there'd be trouble. However movie theaters don['t do that. Instead they get paid to show the ads. This makes no sense.

Heck, if you don't even get a preview/prelisten of the movies/songs you are interested in in the first place, how do you know whether you'll want to buy them later? And they still wonder why their revenue is on the decline?

These guys should get a clue from RadioHead.

Exactly. The free market decides who wins and loses. If society rules this filter too draconian they'll move to content that isn't protected by the filter.

It's like with Radiohead. Although people could've downloaded their music for free from webpage they chose bittorent.Why? Simple - inertia. Same as with Windows, people hate it but they just got used to it. It's too hard to change the habits.

You make it sound like a bad thing and really it isn't.If you grab the album of bit torrent you can do as you please, listen to it decide what you feel its worth with no obligation to buy. Having got it from bit torrent you haven't cost RadioHead anything.In fact you might even be helping to raise interest in this album and you may decide it's worth paying for and do so.

Well why bother doing that? Pure self interest if people don't buy it, then there is little incentive for them to do the same with their ne

Man, I'm going to have to start calling you free-market-sees-all-knows-all guys a bunch of religious nuts from now on.

If they had a working filter and people were circumventing it, the RIAA/MPAA would definitely try to make it a legal requirement to be used everywhere. You must fight politically for your freedoms or lose them.

Trailers and advertisements are the reason I don't spend money on DVDs and cancelled my cable. I got one as a present recently. I was going to just rip it and so I could watch it commercial free, but my old ripping software doesn't work anymore, so I just downloaded it off a torrent and gave the disc away without even watching it. I don't like having broken garbage cluttering up the house.

actually, to be precise, people who don't use it will be ruled "negligent" and fined or arrested for aiding copyright infringment: this is great since there will be no need to involve democratic representatives and pay their usual "consulting fees"

You misunderstand. There is content all [webscription.net] over [reallifecomics.com] the [digitaltrouble.com] internet [swreality.net] that wouldn't be protected by this filter. Anyone could easily move to these content producers and enjoy their work and support them in not being overprotective with their copyright.

You misunderstand. Just because there is free content doesn't mean that anyone is lobbying for the rights of people publishing and using it.

If the MAFIAA get their way, linux will be verboten and only systems with inherent copyright enforcement mechanisms will be considered legally acceptable. It isn't about the content, it's about 100% deployment of the "filter" aka DRM systems that will be a drag on us all.

Yeah, yeah. We heard this back when Vista was being created (then called Longhorn). It still hasn't happened yet despite mass amounts of nerds saying it would. Forgive me if I don't think the sky is falling chicken little.

So, they want to filter out content so that no one sees any copyrighted material anywhere on the net.

Given that everything you create is copyrighted (including things explicitly written for display on the web), not displaying anything copyrighted would basically mean completely emptying the web. Yes, this post is copyrighted (through the simple fact that I wrote it just now), and therefore disallowing any copyrighted stuff on the net would mean it couldn't be displayed.

They don't want a filter on every copyrighted document. They want a system which allows them to declare which files are published in violation of their copyright, and they want it to be a standardized (and automated) system so that they don't have to look for contact information,

Will such a filter system also allow 'Joe Public' who has uploaded his photos or videos to police the copyright in his works? Or, as usual, will it only be the large traditional 'media' corporations whose copyright will be 'protected' by these automatic measures?

An industry wide copyright filter shouldn't affect small and independent websites unless its embedded into the OS or browser. If it is then companies selling such crippled products should be forced to disclose it first. As for it being built into websites, I see no problem with that provided they have fair use exceptions. After all, people SHOULDN'T be providing copyrighted content except under fair use laws. Although companies should only institute systems that take into account their local laws, so these [slashdot.org]

Well you know they could try and build it into the routers. I am not sure how they plan to determine if content is copyrighted or not, but it would seem to me to always be easy to circumvent. If they go too far with the filtering, then freedom of speech would kick in and the system would get downgraded to uselessness.

They could also get the providers to force web sites to run the filtering software or not allow them access the the internet. This would have major freedom of speech implications and would mo

An industry wide copyright filter shouldn't affect small and independent websites unless its embedded into the OS or browser.

Oh no, it won't be in either. It'll be in the computer's hardware (BIOS?) and will be required to be active for the programs that the OS is able to run to function. I have mentioned before that we will come to a time where the Internet as we know it will no longer exist in the way we see it now. There will be the "Trusted Computing" Internet where these low-jacked computers will co

I have mentioned before that we will come to a time where the Internet as we know it will no longer exist in the way we see it now. There will be the "Trusted Computing" Internet where these low-jacked computers will communicate and there will be the "Hacker/Hobbyist" Internet where custom built machines, not running the majority OS, will connect to. Guess which one your banking, newspapers, search engines, most of your friends, jobs, etc will operate on?

Actually, this sort of thing happened back in the 1980s, when we had a lot of commercial networks, controlled by the corporations, each one in use by only a small set of corporate customers. Then news got out about this other network called the "Internet", built on government projects by a flock of "hackers", and not controlled by anyone.

It's pretty clear which one people decided to use.

So now the corporate world is hard at work bringing the Internet to heel, with strict corporate controls on what you and I can see or do. If they succeed, your scenario will happen once again. And as the Internet becomes as unusable as all those other networks back in the 1980s, people will slowly move to the network that actually works.

Oh of course, how silly of me. We also heard how this was coming once Windows Vista [wikipedia.org] was launched. How's that going again? Because I haven't heard of any computers refusing to run Linux yet.

After all, people SHOULDN'T be providing copyrighted content except under fair use laws.

This view is all well and good, but (1) fair use is not a right backed by a law, it's a doctrine (it's essentially a recognized loophole or accepted defense), and (2) the four factors governing what is fair use and what is not fair use are purposely vague, so as to require a reasonable legal debate (read: lawsuit) of each and every instance of purported fair/unfair usage of copyrighted content. Fair Use cannot be encoded into a machine.

". . . fair use is not a right backed by a law, it's a doctrine . .."
See http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html/ [copyright.gov] :
"This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law."

These people (Viacom and their ilk) are the worst of the worst as far as I can see. They want to control everything. They want to control how they think, what we say, what we can do. If they don't control it, they want it banned. These people are horrible.

What I must ask, where are efforts to fight these people? Do you realize these people hate the Internet? They will stop at nothing to dismantle the Internet.

It's grossly irresponsible for the modern internet to circulate e-mail without deploying an industry-wide standard spam filtering system. If everybody uses the same spam filtering system, and it was a global standard, then we wouldn't have to worry about unpredictable mail delivery problems. It's just common sense.While we are at it, it's high time that flying ponies were standardized across all little girl's bedrooms. There is absolutely no reason why some of them should be pink, while others are purple an

...demonstrate to me how desperate the content industry is to get the toothpaste back in the tube or Pandora's box to shut. Sorry, guys, but your content is out there on digital media, and given the nature of humans, there's no way you're going to keep it from being spread around. Digital piracy is too easy to accomplish, and rather than adapt to a business model that might incorporate easy distribution and sharing of digital content, they get all offended and feel it's necessary to sue their customers and

One day, maybe in the not too distant future, there will be an article on/.

It will read like this:

Your Rights Online: [slashdot.org] MPAA admit that everything they have said for the last 5 years has been a practical jokePosted by kdawson on Tuesday Cantrembember 75th @ 27:00from the i-knew-it departmentAnonymous Coward writes:

"The lawsuits, the absurd DRM, the crazy "the entire industry is going to collapse" rhetoric - we never believed any of this crap", said a spokesman. "What actually happened was someone suggested that perhaps we could somehow start announcing these ridiculous ideas, record the reaction then release it as a movie. Kind of like The Truman Show [imdb.com], only much much bigger."

Has the MPAA finally gone too far? Will this lead to their ultimate collapse? Quiver with excitement. Tremble with fear. Eat peanuts with raisins.

I know we've been down this path before, but seeing Microsoft get behind open standards when it suits them, and then getting behind closed proprietary stuff when that suits them, still makes me sick. Such a complete absence of any virtue whatsovever.

The media companies love standards when it suits them, such as when it limits the technology companies power (as in music DRM or content filtering). However, when the standards become, well, too standard, they want their own proprietary formats. NBC pulls out of ITunes [nytimes.com] because they didn't like the standard pricing. Sony tweaks its DVD's [about.com] because it doesn't like the standard DRM (and I rented a coaster from Blockbuster recently, thanks Sony).

Viacom says "we believe in following the consumers". The real quote was "We believe in following the consumers as long as it pleases us. Otherwise fuck the consumers."

First up we have a new variant on googlebombing. The filter will be gamed by content owners to pick up on anything they possibly can.This is because of the asymmetric costs. A false positive will cost them nothing, but the poster will get zapped. Indeed blockingd free content will serve the industry quite nicely.

There are >50 content formats, and new ones keep appearing. If the "standard" filter cannot read them, then the obvious thing to do is ban them.You've now established a monopoly where only "approved" formats are allowed.Even if it is an open standard, who writes the filter for new formats ? More importantly, who pays ?

It is also an arms race, and I think we can be clear that the "standard" filter will not be open source.DRM attracts crackers in direct proportion to it's success. Many crackers may not be fans of economics, but their goals are easily modelled in economic terms.They want to take out the "big beast" current filters are small, unsucessful critters.Cracking the industry standard media filter will be more of a coup than breaking WEP, and thus inevitably be swamped.

Also, an entertaining technical/legal point is so many site use Linux so the GPL may get involved.

Its about time the internet was shut down. There is too much copyright infringement going on and it is the only solution. Hackers invariably get past the filters, so filters only work out to be a temporary solution. Maybe we should consider turning off TV transmission too, since those stealing pirates keeping on seeing our copyrighted work without paying us. If we can't have 100% control then we would rather have no one be able to see our work. The Spanish inquisition were taking the right approach.Okay, so

There is a common standard: you upload your videos, and these sites filter them for you. For Google (or anybody else) to disclose their algorithms would be stupid, simply because that would make circumventing the copyright filters much easier.

I think what's really going on here is that Microsoft is egging on Viacom to gain an advantage for themselves.

I say give them the filter. It should be built into every node of the network, so the network flat refuses to transmit Viacom's material, or that of any other copyright holder who wants out of the Internet. Surely a network that will only transmit stuff under a free license would have to be every free software author's dream?

London Printers, Music Moguls, Hollywood Twits; all these content providers want to own the content. They start as a service to deliver content from producer (author, musician, director & actors,..) to consumer (you & I), BUT greed makes them stupid. Unfortunately the best friends of 'Greed & Stupidity' are lawyers. They can and will support either side of an argument for money. Right, morals, ethics are not part of the equation. And we, the consuming public, allowed the legislatures of nation a

Copyright application is really quite simple.The moment anything is published it is copyrighted. Its about prior art, establishing it.

The only way to fulfill what he wants is to take down the whole world wide internet.Considering everything is copyrighted. The real question is: when are such people going toget a clue that what they want is simple not going to happen. Not everyone wants to constraintheir works

A clue that its getting time for fundamental changes in the way we live and exchange value?

Copyright application is really quite simple.The moment anything is published it is copyrighted. Its about prior art, establishing it.

No, the moment any copyrightable work is created, it is copyrighted. Publication is no longer a factor, though it really ought to be as it is extremely wasteful to have unpublished copyrighted works. (A modicum of protection for a work which is created, unpublished, but which is soon going to be published is tolerable, as we don't really want to encourage piracy of manuscript

TFA is a summary of comments made at the Web 2.0 Summit which reference another announcement which summarizes these principles [ugcprinciples.com].

Considering who's on the press release - NBC Universal, Disney, Viacom, Fox, Microsoft, MySpace, Dailymotion (who?), veoh (who??) - the proposed principles are actually fairly balanced. They mention fair use four times, including a statement that "When sending notices and making claims of infringement, Copyright Owners should accommodate fair use" and "If the UGC Service is able to identify specific links that solely direct users to particular non-infringing content on such [piracy-oriented] sites, the UGC Service may allow those links while blocking all other links" and even "If a UGC Service adheres to all of these Principles in good faith, the Copyright Owner should not assert a claim of copyright infringement against such UGC Service with respect to infringing user-uploaded content that might remain on the UGC Service despite such adherence to these Principles."

It's worth reading the whole principles statement. I'm sure there are things that could be tweaked, but there are no major outrages that jump out at me; I'm actually kinda impressed.

And furthermore, that protection shall apply ONLY to that material worthy of protection under Article I, Section VIII, specifically, that such material promotes the progress of Science of the USEFUL Arts.

And furthermore, that protection shall apply ONLY to that material worthy of protection under Article I, Section VIII, specifically, that such material promotes the progress of Science of the USEFUL Arts.Architecture is a Useful Art.

Brittney Spears is Not.

You've got that backwards, actually. Patents deal with the useful arts, while copyrights deal with science. Remember, the Constitution was written in the late 18th century, and the English language is one which changes quite a lot. In the English of the da

Is about 3 days away from a 20 year old kid who creates a filter to get around the identification system.It's only about 10 times easier if the system is well understood and published.

I have a very hard time believing that an uncrackable system like this is even theoretically possible. Anything even remotely good would have to be some kind of sophisticated computer vision system, that could automatically identify the face of say Steven Colbert. Even the good face identifications have large amounts of fals

imeem [imeem.com] is a great example of how media filtering can work to everyone's advantage, after you upload your mp3's their media filtering figures out what the track is you've just uploaded and depending on the results the music will be shared in youtube style either as a full length track with the copyright holder getting a cut of the advertising, or if the copyright holder has said no it'll just be a 30 second sample with links to iTunes/amazon to buy.
imeem is using snocap [snocap.com] for their song fingerprinting - if you rememebr snocap was originally seen as a plugin to a p2p sharing network, but the folks at imeem seem to have done away with the p2p part and just let users upload the music straight to their website. So it's like napster, except that it provides instant gratification, no waiting to listen to the track, or find out that the link is merely a 'broken' sample.

Since all you have to do to evade a filter is encrypt the content, there can never be an effective, industry-wide filtering system. Encrypt the content with even a poor algorithm, put the key as part of the title name, and the filter will never be able to keep up with the new methods of key distribution.

If anything, this would make encryption much more wide-spread among savvy users.

I think the most telling quote is "No one wants a proprietary system that benefits one company." Never would I expect a Movie Industry exec to sound like a proponent for open-source... well, as long as it is not actually for his company's original works of authorship.

Frankly, they need less of a say about what goes on online, not more. The internet was never designed to be their bitch where people can only do what the various media and entertainment companies want.

Nice strawman. However if the entertainment and media companies decided that people couldn't post on any forums except their own, they wouldn't be able to stop us. All their doing is controlling a small portion of people's activities based on copyright law which the constitution gives Congress the ability to create. In my opinion the law is currently unconstitutional but I'd rather see people work towards copyright reform rather then create an anarchist society where people do whatever they want. It certai

..rather then create an anarchist society where people do whatever they want..

As an anarchist, i have to respond to this. Anarchy does not mean people can do whatever they want. It means they can do whatever they want so long as that action does not stop other people from doing what they want. There is a massive difference between the two.

So if I want to make a living from the works I've created who wins in an anarchist society? Me or those that want to access my content for free forcing me to get a second job with NO hope of making a living from my work that they clearly enjoy?

I want to make a living filing bug reports for Debian, posting on slashdot, and doing other things I do in the normal course of my day. Why should I be forced to get a second job because I have no hope of making a living from my work that others clearly enjoy?Essentially you are arguing that you have some abstract right to make a living from your creative works. If I can't make enough money at something I feel like doing, why is it that I can't demand laws to keep cash flowing in my direction? Maybe I do

I want to make a living filing bug reports for Debian, posting on slashdot, and doing other things I do in the normal course of my day. Why should I be forced to get a second job because I have no hope of making a living from my work that others clearly enjoy?

Fortunately here at the USofA you have the ability to try. In a society where there is no copyright protection you don't have the ability to try.

If I can't make enough money at something I feel like doing, why is it that I can't demand laws to keep cash flowing in my direction?

You seem to misunderstand copyright law. A copyright holder can't demand cash keep flowing to him, he can only demand that for a limited number of years he have a monopoly on publishing his work as granted by the Constitution. Piracy is, funnily enough, unconstitutional.

Why is it that making music is?

Because the constitution says it is, and we as a society also say it is. It is believed that

A copyright holder can't demand cash keep flowing to him, he can only demand that for a limited number of years he have a monopoly on publishing his work as granted by the Constitution.

The current duration of copyright is effectively infinite, and will be extended as necessary by the likes of Disney. You can no longer use the "limited duration" of copyright in any rational discourse on this subject. Also, since you brought up the Constitution, I feel compelled to point out that the Founders did not intend copyright to provide an unlimited cash flow to content creators. They certainly did not intend it to have the dramatic negative effects that modern copyright law is having on the whole of our society. No sir. The intent was to enrich the public domain, so that all can benefit from the creative minds among us.

So, copyright holders got a limited time to make a buck: the presumption (and it was only a presumption) was that potential remuneration was required to encourage the production of such works. The fact that you believe that to be true has little to do with the primary function of American copyright, which was to make more creative works available to all. Jefferson himself considered copyright to be a loan from the public domain! Ideas and creative works were never meant to be kept under private control indefinitely, yet that is precisely what has happened. It's my belief that we would be far better off abolishing copyright completely rather than maintain the current state of affairs. Modern copyright is diametrically opposed in purpose and effect to what the Founders wanted: a vibrant public domain that enriches us all.

You seem to think copyright protection should be a given. Why shouldn't there be some sort of legal protection to allow me to at least try to make money off of filing bug reports? I'm sure you know that most musicians don't make money off of copyright, but from performances. Most musicians really don't need copyright to make money. Radiohead's recent album might as well be public domain for all intents and purposes since they are giving it away to anyone who asks for it, and they've made about $6,000,000. They've got a better than 0% chance. I hope that dada21 is reading this so that he can put his word in. I believe he is working on music production for artists that don't utilize copyright. AFAIK, his artist partners are making money w/o the benefit of copyright.

A copyright holder can't demand cash keep flowing to him, he can only demand that for a limited number of years he have a monopoly on publishing his work as granted by the Constitution. Piracy is, funnily enough, unconstitutional.

Which...the only reason why he'd want the monopoly is to keep cash flowing to him.

Piracy is not unconstiutional. Piracy is spelled out in Article 1, Section 8:

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; So congress can define and punish piracy, but it doesn't have to. Getting back on topic:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Congress has the power to establish copyrights and patents, but it is not commanded to do so. Famously, Thomas Jefferson was very much against copyrights. In any case, the Constitution restricts the government, not people, so the Constitution cannot declare the actions of a private citizen to be repugnant to itself. What you mean to say copyright infringement is illegal under current law.

Because the constitution says it is, and we as a society also say it is. It is believed that the amount of quality creative works developed would decrease dramatically without copyright. This is one belief I believe in.

The constitution singles out only authors and inventors. I am an author of this post, but I have no possibility of making any money from it even if it was copyrighted*. Copyright as a means to try to make profit off of one's works isn't as important as you think it is. And judging from the amount of people my age (early-to-mid 20s) who download music illegally, your argument that society supports copyright is suspect.

When all is said and done you believe that people who make creative works should be allowed to try to make a profit from them. That is fine, but you believe they are entitled to special rights to that effect which allow them to be paid again and again for work they've already done. No other profession I'm aware of allows for such special rights. I don't get royalty checks for my previous consulting gig, even though they are still using the systems I set up for them. Why authors and inventors should get a special pass, I don't know.

*All my posts are public domain.** I support a limited copyright as intended by the founders. A copyright that has the goal of enriching the public domain. I believe a term of approximately 10 years with an optional 5 year extension to be optimal.

Quite a challenging question. Thankyou.I guess simply, those who pirate your works are violating your wishes to be paid for the property you are selling. The pirates are breaking the state of anarchy.

However, the issue of digital content is bigger than this. What about the people who would not pay for your work anyway, and only download it because they can (which I believe is most people) ? What kind of ethic is it to hoard something that is infinitely reproducible, denying it from those that simply can no

However, the issue of digital content is bigger than this. What about the people who would not pay for your work anyway, and only download it because they can (which I believe is most people) ? What kind of ethic is it to hoard something that is infinitely reproducible, denying it from those that simply can not make the money to pay?

This is where the "anarchist" ideal seems to break down. Whose desire is more important? A difficult question.

You may suffer, but many others benefit. Not ideal, you lose in this situation. Perhaps we can be more holistic in our analysis - how can we setup a system where people have food on the table, a roof over their head and be able to work on the art/craft of their choice....and give it to the world for free if its digital.

It would/should be based on how many different people access the content (download it in the case of internet based content). As if a person was only provided enough to eat and sleep, why shouldn't that person have the ability to own a television? Or have broadband internet? Or have the ability to live in a life of luxury? In the current market we allow people the opportunity to have these things,

I'm not seeing anyone besides the chicken littles here at slashdot saying anyone will have to do anything. And I'm sorry if I seem overly harsh but I'm hearing the same dribble about this article as I did about Windows Vista and how everything except Vista would be outlawed. I take such comments now with a hefty amount of salt given how accurate they've proven to be in the past.

No the copyright holders want to get compensation for people accessing their content as the United States Constitution allows them to. A major player of the software industry has stepped forward to sell their services, which will funnily enough also be protected under copyright law (just as Linux is).

What does the tech industry get out of it?

The ability to willingly limit what can be posted on their website for the price of no longer having to manually stop their users from breaking the law.

how long until our good buddies at the justice department start to demand that other filters be put into place besides copyright ones?

No the copyright holders want to get compensation for people accessing their content as the United States Constitution allows them to.

You have noticed the kinds of laws that they lobby for, right? Since when do they give a damn what the Constitution says?

I'm also open to suggestions on how to do this, although one thing I'm doing is voting the next election. Will you at least do that much?

I vote, but there's not much chance of that making a difference. They've got the congressional districts so rigged that it's usually a foregone conclusion as to who is going to win. You can vote for the president, but the only people that get to discuss copyright law with the president's people are the ones that shell out the money to get the attention. They tell congress that the s

Because these businesses have entered a mutually beneficial agreement with each other to institute a system that protects their collective copyright. Why should you be guaranteed a position in this collective agreement? This is the United States of America still isn't it? Where people can control who they associate as per the Constitution? Or has the first amendment been repealed while I wasn't looking?

Who said anything about others enforcing it for free? At the very least the other companies will be saving money from having to devote man hours to going through DMCA notices. The real people who should be blamed here are those that issue takedown notices illegally and those who post copyrighted content onto other people's websites illegally without permission of the website owner.

Some years ago Disney's lawyers were sending cease-and-desist letters to kindergartens that were playing Disney videos for their children, because they weren't paying for a "public performance" or some such. After a couple of Congresscritters threatened Disney with legislation they backed off. They're assholes to the n'th degree, no question.

This could actually good for a guy like me.
I am working on a website with my own music, and it occurs to me that I'll be lost in a sea of over-hyped, over-produced, under-inspired music and media that was never intended to be "free" in any sense. I can't imagine how I could begin to get noticed, much less "compete" with all this stuff that's been promoted so vigorously in the establishment media.

Never forget Sound Exchange, who feels they own your music whenever it's broadcast in order to collect royalt